http://www.diva-portal.org

This is the published version of a paper published in Society & Natural Resources.

Citation for the original published paper (version of record):

Bergstén, S., Keskitalo, E C. (2019)Feeling at Home from A Distance?: How Geographical Distance and Non-ResidencyShape Sense of Place among Private Forest OwnersSociety & Natural Resources, 32(2): 184-203https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1533607

Access to the published version may require subscription.

N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper.

Permanent link to this version:http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-157783

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=usnr20

Society & Natural ResourcesAn International Journal

ISSN: 0894-1920 (Print) 1521-0723 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usnr20

Feeling at Home from A Distance? HowGeographical Distance and Non-Residency ShapeSense of Place among Private Forest Owners

Sabina Bergstén & E. Carina H. Keskitalo

To cite this article: Sabina Bergstén & E. Carina H. Keskitalo (2019) Feeling at Homefrom A Distance? How Geographical Distance and Non-Residency Shape Sense ofPlace among Private Forest Owners, Society & Natural Resources, 32:2, 184-203, DOI:10.1080/08941920.2018.1533607

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1533607

© 2018 The Author(s). Published withlicense by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

Published online: 20 Dec 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 213

View Crossmark data

Feeling at Home from A Distance? How GeographicalDistance and Non-Residency Shape Sense of Place amongPrivate Forest Owners

Sabina Bergst�en and E. Carina H. Keskitalo

Department of Geography and Economic History, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

ABSTRACTOut-migration from rural areas and generational shifts create condi-tions whereby increasing numbers of private forest owners live at adistance from their forestland. Geographical distance and non-resi-dency have been raised as issues that may possibly weaken theseowners’ relationships with their properties. Drawing on the “sense ofplace” concept as a frame of analysis for 51 qualitative interviewswith resident and nonresident private forest owners from two areasin Sweden, this study provides in-depth understanding of how geo-graphical distance and place of residency shape owners’ feelingsabout their forest properties. The study shows that sense of place isconstructed in complex and multifaceted ways over time and thatsocial and historical contexts and processes beyond the forest envir-onment can make owners feel closeness to their distant properties.Thus, geographical distance or residency alone does not explain var-iations in these forest owners’ feelings of distance or closeness totheir properties.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 24 April 2018Accepted 14 September 2018

KEYWORDSGeographical distance;private forest owners;qualitative methods; senseof place; Sweden

Introduction

In the context of rural change, urbanization and globalization, there is an ongoingtransformation of the private forest owner corps in European countries and the UStowards increased heterogeneity in terms of their socio-economic characteristics, objec-tives, and values (e.g., Kvarda 2004; Hogl, Pregernig, and Weiss 2005; Kendra and Hull2005; Rickenbach, Zeuli, and Sturgess-Cleek 2005; Wiersum, Elands, and Hoogstra2005; Fischer et al. 2010; Urquhart and Courtney 2011; Haugen, Karlsson, and Westin2016). Growing numbers of private forest owners1 are no longer directly dependent ontheir forestland for their livelihood and their relationships to their forests go beyondfinancial considerations to a wide range of values and meanings, such as nature conser-vation, recreation, and personal enjoyment (Kvarda 2004; Kendra and Hull 2005;Wiersum, Elands, and Hoogstra 2005; Ingemarson, Lindhagen, and Eriksson 2006;Nordlund and Westin 2011; Urquhart and Courtney 2011).

CONTACT Sabina Bergst�en sabina.bergsten@umu.se Department of Geography and Economic History, UmeåUniversity, SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden.� 2018 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLCThis is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.

SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES2019, VOL. 32, NO. 2, 184–203https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1533607

In particular, with out-migration from rural areas and generational shifts, owners liv-ing at a distance from their property and often in urban areas, are an expanding group(Wiersum, Elands, and Hoogstra 2005; Haugen, Karlsson, and Westin 2016). As a result,both research and practice often distinguish between resident and nonresident ownergroups. Non-resident “absentee” owners have been identified as having a weaker base inconventional forest ownership and conditions than rural-based owners. For instance,they might be more passive or indifferent concerning production-oriented forest man-agement, be more inclined towards environmental management, and view their propertywith a more social and recreational focus (Kvarda 2004; Wiersum, Elands, andHoogstra 2005; Urquhart, Courtney, and Slee 2010). Research has pointed to the needto further understand the complex context of the demographic diversity in which own-ers form their ties with their forests (Fischer et al. 2010; Nordlund and Westin 2011;L€ahdesm€aki and Matilainen 2014). Specifically, questions have been raised whether therelationship, or attachment, between the spatially distant new generations of nonresi-dents and their forestland, is changing or weakening, which can, for example, influenceforest management or time spent at the property (Westin et al. 2017). In fact, if emo-tional linkages gained through experiences and meanings connected to the place of theforestland are not fostered within the family, a successful transfer of forest to the nextgeneration could be jeopardized (Creighton, Blatner, and Carroll 2015). In the samevein, owners’ relationships with a certain place can be central to understanding theiremotional ties to forestland (J€orgensen and Stjernstr€om 2008). Rather than requiringlinks to occupation, livelihood or management, forest owners’ deep-seated emotionalties relate to the interpretation of their own forestland as being a significant locationthat has personal and historical connections, for example, through its having beenowned for a long time, inherited, or as symbolic family heritage (J€orgensen andStjernstr€om 2008; Creighton, Blatner, and Carroll 2015; Markowski-Lindsay et al. 2016).Thus, these studies have indicated that there is a link between forest owners’ relation-

ship with their forestland and their sense of place. “Sense of place” is considered a keyconcept for understanding the subjective meanings of human-environment relations,emotions, and bonds developed in relation to a place (Tuan 1977; Cresswell 2014).Sense of place is acquired and formed by individuals or groups through their experien-ces and interactions with the physical and social features of a place in which they live,visit, use, or manage (Jorgensen and Stedman 2001; Stedman 2003; Soini, Vaarala, andPouta 2012). In social science natural resource research, sense of place has been identi-fied as useful since it distinguishes values that extend beyond the instrumental and bio-centric to include emotional, cultural, symbolic, and historic meanings (Williams 2002).These meanings are regarded as important because they contribute to shaping not onlypeople’s values but also their concerns, commitment and involvement when it comes tothe care, management, and control of places (Eisenhauer, Krannich, and Blahna 2000;Larson, De Freitas, and Hicks 2013; Lin and Lockwood 2014).Sweden is a relevant case in this context as it is a country where historically a strong

focus on production and economic values has prevailed (Mårald, Sandstr€om, andNordin 2017), and where forestland is predominantly private, with more than 300,000private, non-industrial forest owners who control around half of the country’s product-ive forest area (Haugen, Karlsson, and Westin 2016). In Sweden, people who have

SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 185

recently acquired forestland are generally younger than longer-term owners, they aremore often female, they live further away from their property, and they show a higheremployment rate, higher income, and higher educational level (Lidestav et al. 2017).There has been a concern that an increasing share of owners residing further awayfrom their properties could, over time, result in decreased forestry production, even ifthis has so far not been demonstrated (Haugen, Karlsson, and Westin 2016; Lidestavet al. 2017). However, if owners become more distanced from their forest in both a geo-graphical and emotional sense, there could ultimately be implications for policy andpractice in forestry, environmental protection, recreation, local consultations on landissues, and land use planning (Keskitalo 2017). Using the lens of the sense of place con-cept and drawing upon the Swedish case, this article aims to develop an understandingof how geographical distance and residency shape private resident and nonresident for-est owners’ relationships with their forest. By considering the case of two different geo-graphical contexts in Sweden and through owners’ own experiences, emotions, andperceptions, the article examines how forest owners residing at varying physicaldistances to their forestland construct their sense of place.

Theoretical Framework

Conceptually, various definitions of and theoretical approaches to sense of place2 havebeen employed. It has been suggested that there are multiple reasons and influencesinvolved, but there is no real consensus on what the concept of sense of place comprisesor how it is constructed (Farnum, Hall, and Kruger 2005; Convery, Corsane, and Davis2014). With our emphasis on the spatial distance between private forest owners andtheir forests, we aim to discuss this in relation to the influential “early” literature basedin humanistic geography, which regards sense of place as derived from deep personalexperiences and emotional interpretations of locations (Relph 1976; Tuan 1977), as wellas to the “later” literature, which emphasizes how sense of place is constructed throughdifferent social interactions and processes (Massey 1994; Cresswell 2004;Stokowski 2008).A fundamental point of discussion in the literature on sense of place concerns the

way to relate to distance, or proximity, between people and places. The early literatureon sense of place emphasized the importance of closeness, physical as well as social andemotional, for people to generate a sense of place. At the heart of this literature lies thefocus on personal experiences and involvement related to places as being keys to creat-ing the foundation for a sense of place, which includes a sense of deep care, concern,and responsibility for that place (Relph 1976; Tuan 1977). According to Relph (1976),an authentic and genuine sense of place comes from individuals experiencing“insideness,” belonging and feeling at home, which is derived from places where wewere born and grew up, live, or have had significant experiences. The opposite,“placelessness,” is described as being “outside,” uncommitted and geographically alien-ated without having significant places. For Relph, authentic sense of place, or familiaritywith a place, is eroded by geographical mobility, such as infrequent visits (ibid). Tuan(1975) implied that the emotional and physical bonds to places that are required for asense of place to evolve have become less possible with globalization. Tuan (1977)

186 S. BERGST�EN AND E. C. H. KESKITALO

claimed that being close to a place involves combining the meanings of interpersonalintimacy and geographical proximity. Residency, particularly for a long time, enablespeople to experience and know a place intimately and acquire a sense of the place(Tuan 1977). Thus, sense of place is related to both time and distance. Time affectssense of place because in time we become familiar with a place and acquire a “feel” forit (ibid). Still, Tuan maintained that social distance may indeed be the inverse of geo-graphical distance, and that “psychologically, absence (spatial distance) can make theheart grow fonder” (Tuan 1977, 50).The above understandings of sense of place have been criticized. The focus on the

negative consequences of high mobility and globalization thought to result in weakenedties to places has been rejected as an outdated, false nostalgia for places as enclosed,particular and uniform, and founded on ideas of authentic social relations (Massey1993, 1994; Harvey 1996). What makes a place special, Massey (1994) argued, is notnecessarily any intrinsic qualities of the locale itself: it may also be “the particularity oflinkages to that ‘outside’ which is, therefore, itself part of what constitutes the place”(Massey 1994, 155). Instead, Massey emphasized that it is important to recognize theexisting differences between people and their relations to places, for example, withrespect to distance where different individuals may have different perceptions of“nearness” and “farness,” and interpret the same geographical distance differently(Massey 1994, 2005).A sense of place, it is argued, should be seen as socially constructed, relational, and

part of social interactions and wider social processes (Harvey 1996; Massey 2005;Stokowski 2008). Thus, a place is subject to change since it is continually being definedand redefined by people (Gustafson 2006). Sense of place, then, is learned within arange of social and cultural contexts over time (Derrien and Stokowski 2014), developedcollectively (Stokowski 2008) over people’s life courses (Castree 2003) in everyday life(Stokowski 2008), and passed along to others (Eisenhauer, Krannich, and Blahna 2000).The temporal dimension of sense of place implies that places can acquire new meaningsover time because people themselves can try to make places “their own,” for example byacquiring knowledge about the place or building social relations in the place (Gustafson2001). Instead of being regarded as producing negative consequences for sense of place,(increased) mobility can instead be viewed as making it possible to overcome spatialdistances and acquire attachment to different places (Gustafson 2006, 2009), or make itpossible for people to establish emotional bonds to a place they have only visited orlived in temporarily and on a part-time basis (Kaltenborn and Williams 2002). Insteadof the distinctions based on demographic variables and residential status, Kaltenbornand Williams (2002) proposed investigating the diverse ways in which people are tiedto places.

Methods

A qualitative case study approach was employed to identify and elucidate a broad rangeof individual private forest owners’ experiences, feelings, and perceptions in order toensure informative and rich data and understanding (Winchester and Rofe 2010).

SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 187

Two case study areas in Sweden were selected to provide divergent geographical con-texts: Vilhelmina municipality in the northern county of V€asterbotten and H€assleholmmunicipality in the southern county of Skåne (Figure 1). Both municipalities are ruraland non-metropolitan, albeit on different scales. The number of inhabitants and popula-tion density is several times higher in the southern H€assleholm municipality (approxi-mately 52,000 inhabitants) than in the northern Vilhelmina municipality (nearly 6,800inhabitants); and whereas Vilhelmina is facing long-term depopulation, the populationin H€assleholm has been slowly increasing in the 21st century (Statistics Sweden 2018).As a whole, the forest property sizes are larger in Vilhelmina Municipality than inH€assleholm Municipality, and there is a larger proportion of forest owners residing at adistance from their properties outside Vilhelmina Municipality (such as in the regionalcentre of Umeå or in and around the capital city of Stockholm) than in H€assleholmMunicipality, where owners often reside within the southern county of Skåne.

Figure 1. Case study areas and locations of conducted interviews.

188 S. BERGST�EN AND E. C. H. KESKITALO

In total, 51 individuals owning forest property in the two municipalities were inter-viewed by the first author in the first half of 2015 (Table 1). The interviewees wereselected purposely to achieve maximum variation in terms of distance between theirresidence and their forest property, residence in habitations of differing size, size of for-est property, and sex of the forest owners. The selection was thus targeted towards cap-turing diversity and reflecting the range of forest owners in Sweden rather thanproviding a representative sample (Baxter 2010; Bradshaw and Stratford 2010; Ritchie,Lewis, and Elam 2012). Selection of interviewees was made on the basis of a register(Skogs€agarf€orteckningen from Lantbruksfakta; http://www.lantbruksfakta.se) containinginformation on forest owners in Sweden by municipality, including name, residentialaddress, date of birth, sex, size of property, and whether the owner is a resident or non-resident of the particular municipality. Information on how the owners acquired theirproperty or length of ownership was not provided in the registry. In developing thesample, we draw upon the definition established by the Swedish Forest Agency of“resident forest owners” as those who reside within the borders of the municipality and“nonresident forest owners” as those who reside in another municipality and to extendthis we have chosen to group the owners into four categories according to their place ofresidence and distance to forest property (see Table 1). The four groups with varyingplace of residency and distance to forest property (estimated km by road, as defined bythe interviewees) were similar in number of interviewees, and within the groups theinterviewees varied by age, sex, and size of property. In order to minimize the oftenbiased sample towards men that can be seen in qualitative studies on private forestowners, the selection of interviewees was done with the objective of achieving a nearlyequal distribution; hence, we interviewed 25 women and 26 men.In the resultant sample of interviewees, the age range was 28–75 years, with a mean

age of 53 for the northern study area and 55 for the southern one. Most of the inter-viewees had inherited, received as a gift, or bought their property from a close familymember, with duration of ownership ranging from one to more than 50 years, with an

Table 1. Key characteristics of the interviewed private forest owners in the two case study areas (N¼ 51).

Place of residence, Resident ornonresident owner, Distance toforest property

NorthVilhelmina Municipality

SouthH€assleholm Municipality

Rural area, Resident ownerLiving on, or less than 5 kmto forest property

8 8

Municipality centre (Vilhelmina,H€assleholm), Resident ownerApprox. 15–65 km (North), Approx.5–30 km (South)

6 6

Regional centre (Umeå, Malm€o/Lund),Non-resident ownerApprox. 230–250 km (North), Approx.80–100 km (South)

6 6

National centre (Stockholm, the capitalcity of Sweden) Non-resident ownerApprox. 680–780 km (North), Approx.500–530 km (South)

6 5

Total no. of interviewees with forestproperty in respective casestudy area

26 25

SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 189

average of about 20 years of ownership. The holdings had often been in the families’ownership for several generations. The majority of the respondents had (former) resi-dential houses, second homes, or other buildings, such as farmhouses, on their property.Some of the owners in H€assleholm municipality rented out land or residential houses.The size of the properties ranged from about 10 to 800 ha. Although not included as aquestion in the interview guide, a handful of the owners voluntarily expressed that theywere dependent for their income on forestry revenues from their properties. Some ofthese were farmers and they resided next to their forestland, whereas some werenonresidents.All interviewees were first contacted via written letter sent by mail, which was fol-

lowed up by a telephone call to inquire whether the individual was willing to meet foran interview. For those interested in participating, an interview date and time werebooked. Of 88 persons initially contacted by telephone, 37 declined to take part in aninterview for a variety of reasons, for example, due to a lack of time, sickness, issuesrelated to work or family, or because they perceived that they were not able to contrib-ute much since they were not engaged in, or did not have knowledge about, their forestproperty. Some who co-owned their property did not want to discuss co-owned land.The majority of the interviews took place in the home of the owner and some at their

workplace or a public venue such as a library or hotel lobby if preferred by the inter-viewee. The semi-structured open-ended interviews followed an interview guide target-ing a range of themes on forest ownership, with a set of questions concerning the forestowners’ experiences, emotions, and perceptions related to the meanings they associatedwith their forestland. These questions included “feelings of home,” changes over timeand ownership, as well as their perceived physical distance/proximity to their propertyand how they believed their residing proximate or at a distance may influence theirrelationship with their forest. The average time for an entire interview was 1 h 15min.All interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and, through the use of aqualitative software program, MAXQDA 11, thematically coded by the first author. Theaim of the research and the theoretical framework guided the coding and analysis of thedata (Braun and Clarke 2006). An initial coding list connected to the theoretical pre-understanding was created. Accordingly, repeated patterns of similarities but also diver-sity in the data were deductively coded into overall themes and sub-themes. In addition,other emerging sub-themes were inductively included, based on interpretations of theinterview texts during the coding process (reading, reviewing and revising the codesand the content). The second author developed an early interpretation of the codeddata and a first draft of the results, and the first author re-assessed and advanced thisanalysis while also independently conducting an analysis of the coded data. Brief sum-maries with selected extracts were made of themes and sub-themes in order to identifytheir essential points and to form a coherent and valid analytical narrative. The threeover-riding analytical themes captured were: (i) “experiencing and feelings of closenessto the forest property,” (iii) “experiencing and feelings of distance related to the forestproperty,” and (ii) “change, including time and processes influencing sense of place.”For ethical reasons, the interviewees’ identities have been protected; they are

referred to by sex (Female (F) or Male (M)), geographical place of residence (rural,municipality centre, regional centre, national centre), and case study area (north or

190 S. BERGST�EN AND E. C. H. KESKITALO

south). The first author translated the quotations in the article from the originalSwedish to English.

Results

This section starts with a brief presentation of the diverse meanings ascribed by theowners to their forests and their perceptions of the physical distance between them andtheir properties. The rest of the Results section is structured according to the overallthemes derived from the data analysis; two parts relate to “closeness,” another to“change,” and the last to “distance.”

Diversity in Meanings and Perceptions

The interviews uncovered diversity in the owners’ relationships with their forests, illus-trated in the following resident owner’s answer when asked about the meaning ofhis forest:

I like to be in the forest, so it’s particularly a place to be in. Also, I see the forest as aproducer of raw material, and since we have forest up to our house, you can see the forestand the wildlife, so the forest is a place for wildlife. But, also, the forest gives a certainatmosphere, which I like, and I’ve always liked being in the forest. My father was a hunterand he took me out hunting when I was very small, so I’ve been out in the forest as oftenI could, my whole life. (M/rural/south)

The different meanings the various owners assigned to their forests were emphasizedby many of them as simultaneously forming their sense of place. It was not reflected onthat this multitude of different meanings might in any way be an issue or that oneaspect influencing sense of place was weak or strong; rather, the components were oftenexpressed as interrelated and complementary, such as the esthetic qualities of the nat-ural environment, recreational activities, and interviewees’ own psychological well-being.Similarly, the interviewees mostly extended their meanings beyond the scale of the phys-ical forest environment to the wider property (although interview questions focused on“the forest” and “the forestland” rather than “the forest property”). The nonresidentowners recognized the physical buildings on their property, such as second homes orformer residential houses, as influential in forming their sense of place. Multiple activ-ities associated with, and made possible in, the place of their property were also foundto be part of constructing a sense of place. Irrespective of distance or residential status,owners performed recreational activities, forestry-related activities, renovation of build-ings, or activities intended to enhance the esthetic qualities of their forest propertyenvironment.Different perceptions of “nearness” and “farness” (cf. Massey 1994, 2005) were com-

municated during the interviews. What owners viewed as being close to or far fromtheir property varied substantially, depending not only on physical distance but also ontheir own perceptions of “nearness” and “farness.” What counted as close to the prop-erty varied: 10 km, “only an hour’s drive,” or being there often made owners perceive“nearness.” Several of the southern nonresident owners living in the regional centresexperienced a geographical distance of approximately 100 km as “just right,” and they

SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 191

visited often or on a part-time basis stayed at their properties. Southern owners residingin the national centre of Stockholm and, especially, northern nonresident owners withtheir property at longer distances from their residence, perceived the distances to be toogreat, for example, to have access to them at weekends. They mostly spent time at theirproperties during holidays. However, the following northern owner residing inStockholm considered himself because of the good transport possibilities to the area ofhis property, to reside proximate to his forest, even though it is approximately750 km away:

It’s easy to get there, just a flight [from Stockholm] to Vilhelmina and then a rented car.It’s far in kilometres but I’m really close to my forest because it’s easy to get there. (M/national centre/north)

Experiencing Closeness Through Inheritance and Social Interactions

Forest ownership and having inherited the forest property (as most of the intervieweeshad done)—and consequently being the recipient of cultural heritage, traditions and tiesfar back in time—was at the core of many owners’ sense of place, irrespective of wherethey resided in relation to the land. The property and their ownership of it were part ofand enabled their historical family linkages. They described the forest, the property andthe local area as being part of not only their own past but also that of their parents andother ancestors. A northern owner, who resided in the regional center, explained thatone of the reasons she kept her inherited property was “to maintain her own history.”The interviewees described how their predecessors had cared for and managed the for-est, the land and the houses on the property for a long time. They pointed out thelong-term thinking and responsibilities related to the forest ownership, and how theythemselves aspired to continue to be the custodian of the land in order to be able tohand it over to the next generation, their children. For many, their sense of historyextended to the history of the village or rural community surrounding their property.For owners not residing in the municipality of their forestland, their property facili-

tated social interactions with family, relatives, and friends in the surrounding areas.Particularly for the northern owners with longer distances to their property, houses ontheir land served as meeting points for their often geographically scattered family con-nections during holidays:

We siblings meet and we have a good time, we make excursions; look at the forest a bit. Ifind it boring to be there alone, so I’m never there by myself. It’s the social company that’simportant when I go there. (M/regional centre/north)

Also, due to shared ownership with other family members and activities performedtogether at the property, both resident and nonresident owners experienced a sense ofkinship and affinity, sometimes intergenerational, and this contributed to their sense ofplace, for example, through a family “feeling proud” of their forest.In relation to the local community, the ownership of property for both resident and

nonresident owners meant, to varying degrees, involvement or engagement locally, suchas with formal associations (e.g., private road associations, village associations, or hunt-ing teams etc.). However, while some nonresident owners considered themselves to not

192 S. BERGST�EN AND E. C. H. KESKITALO

be involved and engaged locally, and others said that they had few or no social interac-tions outside their family or friends when visiting their property, they anyhow expressedfeeling a sense of belonging locally. Other nonresidents mentioned their social connec-tions with neighbors or villagers—both informally in diverse social networks andthrough participating in locally organized activities and cultural events—as adding totheir sense of belonging locally, or to their “strong feeling for the village.” Others articu-lated that although they resided far away geographically and had done so for manyyears, the continuance of such social relations made them feel like they had not beengone for long, as in the following quote:

There’s the private road association and there’s the hunting team, and some other activitiesin the area that we go to. Then it’s natural that you chat with your neighbours. When I goto the local grocery store I always meet someone there who I chat with, so it doesn’t feellike I’ve been away. (M/regional centre/south)

Feeling Closeness—Both Despite and Because of Distance and Mobility

Both owners residing proximate to and at a distance articulated their sense of place asderiving from the emotions and meanings associated with the fact that their forestproperty constituted “a home,” in both a physical and an emotional sense. Residentowners often referred to their feelings of home as being based on long-term connec-tions, having acquired experience and knowledge about the place, and the property as awhole or the forest is a “familiar” place to them. A southern resident forest owner, whohad moved from the place of the property at age 16 and after many years away hadreturned to live in the house she grew up in and to the forestland she co-owned withher siblings, described her feelings in relation to the forest:

I have always been there, since I was a child, and there are certain traditions that areassociated with it. … We have a picnic there; have had it every spring since I was small.Therefore, things like that make me feel at home; it’s associated with traditions andsomething enjoyable. (F/rural/south)

Non-resident owners, in particular, underlined their long-term anchoring and a senseof continuity in the place of their property, such as having been born and raised at thelocation or spending much of their summers and holidays there in their childhood andyouth. They referred to the place as part of their past and their family and connected itto nostalgic memories and remembrances of relatives or other people in the area. Theyalso considered it a place where they could feel secure and relaxed and said the house(s)on their property provided space for recreation, rest and revitalization. Their ownmobility, i.e. that they had moved away from their “original” or “old” home (the placeof the forest property), was given as the reason they could feel at home in multiple pla-ces where they had resided or had second homes. Similarly, some owners residing out-side the municipalities of their property framed their emotional sense of their forestproperty as originating from their mobile lives and said their forest property constituted“a point of gravity” in life for them.One nonresident owner explained:

SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 193

It provides a stability in some way, a belonging. To have some kind of fixed point. …compared to owning shares, which is very impersonal. Therefore, it’s tradition and family.We own this together, my siblings and I, so we have something. (F/national centre/south)

Another interviewee pointed out that although he did not spend much time in thearea of his forest property due to the long distance to it, he considered it one of hismost important homes. Others stressed that they regarded their property as their “real”home, exemplified by a few men who had never resided adjacent to their northern for-est property and now resided in the northern regional centre or in Stockholm. Oneexpressed it as follows:

I was brought up in [X] and have nothing left there since my whole family are nowresidents of [Y], so the meaning of the forest and the house up there is some kind ofconnection back in time and also some kind of, well, recreation and safety and home. If Iconsider a home in the world, I consider the home to be there, very much, even if I’mnow a resident of [Y]. That’s where I have my family history, and that’s where I functionin a good way. (M/national centre/north)

Geographical distance was not shown to be an inevitable predictor of a weaker rela-tionship with their property. When asked about the geographical distance betweenthemselves and their forestland in relation to sense of place, nonresident owners whoconsidered the distance too far simultaneously expressed that this distance made themlong for their property. The following southern owner, residing in Stockholm, expressedsuch feelings:

I live too far away. But that [perception] is because I like it so much. At the same time, it’sno more than about four hours by train down there, so it’s relatively near anyway. But,yes, I would like to have it about an hour away from me. It would be nice if that was thecase, but I can’t say I suffer from it. It’s more that I build up a great longing for it, a love.(M/national centre/south)

Other “distant” forest owners argued that the physical distance to their propertyenhanced their bonds and emotional sentiment:

I believe the bonds strengthen, actually, with distance. The closer you get, the thinner thebonds get because they’re so taken-for-granted. They’re not if you live 550 km away; thenthey’re not so obvious. Then it takes a lot. (M/national centre/south)

Because they had inherited their property and had a strong interest in it, other inter-viewees noted that distance did not play a significant role:

No matter where I live I have the same view, I think. It’s still my heritage, or my roots. Idon’t think I see it differently if I’m close or I’m here. I don’t think so. (F/nationalcentre/south)

Changes in Ownership and Place: Changes in Sense of Place?

A number of owners had experienced changes related to their sense of place since theyhad become the owner, partly due to the increased responsibility and involvement thatcame with the ownership. Both resident and nonresident owners associated this withenhanced positive feelings, and several stated that they had been socialized early on intotheir relationships with their property and forest, especially by elder generations of men

194 S. BERGST�EN AND E. C. H. KESKITALO

(fathers, grandfathers). They referred to the various meanings of the forest environmentdescribed earlier as well as the management of it. Those that specifically emphasizedthat they were “born into” their forest ownership were mainly rural-based owners, butsome who resided in urban areas outside of the municipalities also felt this. While somesaid that these close feelings they had acquired had not changed, many acknowledgedthat with age and over their life course, and at times facilitated by increased knowledgeand experience related to their property, their feelings had deepened. In addition, withage and as they had children of their own, they had developed more thoughts abouttheir own roots linked to their property as well as about the future. A southern nonresi-dent owner residing in one of the regional centres, for example, stated that he hadnoticed that his children, as they aged and had their own children, had changed theirview from not being interested in spending time at the forest property to a situation inwhich it was necessary for them “to queue” to go there.A topic raised by both resident and nonresident owners was the differences in sense

of place between previous generations, who had often been dependent on income fromthe forest and therefore valued it mainly for its economic returns, and their own gener-ation who were more economically independent of incomes from the forest and there-fore appreciated more the mental, social, and natural components of their property. Forexample, some southern nonresident owners recognized that esthetic and recreationqualities were more pronounced among new owners. However, although some inter-viewees felt they had a completely different sense of place than the previous generationof owners, several concluded that theirs had been formed by their parents’ or grand-parents’. Also, a few mentioned that they tried to pass on their own sense of place totheir children.For some owners, changes of the rural place itself had altered their sense of place.

Societal transformations, such as depopulation and a negative economic development inthe rural areas, were frequent topics among the northern owners, and particularly theresident owners were affected by these changes in various ways. In addition, the issue ofnonresident forest owners was brought up in connection to the changes in the ruralareas in the north. For example, a northern owner residing in the municipality centreclaimed that too many nonresidents who moved to urban areas kept their propertiesinstead of selling them to locals, who instead could be residing in these houses. Hemaintained that their “love for their home areas is wiping out the villages.”

Distance: Geographical, Social and Temporal

Out of the 51 interviewees, three nonresident owners from Stockholm with co-ownedforestland in the north had never visited their forestland (which did not includehouses). They stated that they had no emotional involvement with the propertyalthough one implied that it was an inheritance from her father and therefore she didnot want to sell it. They had all spent time in their childhood and youth in familyhouses near the property, which had formed positive memories for them. Furthermore,statements from owners who expressed feelings of distance to their forest propertiesoften related them to their social circumstances and the issue of “time.” Some recentowners had not developed social contacts or become integrated into the local social

SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 195

context of their property. An interviewee residing in the northern municipality centrenoted that he sensed he was part of “a new generation” of forest owners in the locationof his forest and therefore had not been able to join the local hunting team there, animportant social feature that is associated with forest ownership. A female owner in thesouth residing in the municipality centre drew comparisons between her feelings fortwo different properties she owned: the “old” property was instilled with sentimentsfrom her social relationships there, such as with the local hunting team, whereas shehad “no sentimental feelings” towards the “new” one. Others concluded that it couldtake years to root yourself at the property after becoming an owner. Owners who hadlong ago moved away from the location of their property could socially feel like strang-ers there because the social setting had changed during this time; for example, import-ant people in their lives such as family members, relatives or friends had died or movedaway. “Distance-home” was what one northern nonresident owner called his state ofmind, as part of his heart was still in his previous home area, and at the same time hefelt socially alienated there and therefore he no longer felt at home. There were alsothose who, although they had grown up in the area of their property, felt more at homein their urban homes due to time spent and social networks developed there.The ownership itself was mentioned as a reason for experiencing a distant relation-

ship. Some nonresidents considered that sharing their forest property with othersthrough co-ownership reduced their engagement with the property. Only a few (nonres-ident as well as resident owners residing adjacent to their property or in a municipalitycentre) expressed less or no engagement or interest in the property; and argued thatbeing a forest owner was just something they had become through inheritance, and thatthey owned it because “I have to.” The focus was mainly here on the forest, and themany responsibilities included in owning a forest were experienced as a burden orsomething they were not interested in. Ambivalence towards the property was expressedby a nonresident woman who had inherited her property from her husband. With noown background of her own in the area, she did not feel at home there socially speak-ing, and she saw herself as a “middleman” between her late husband and their children,who would ultimately inherit the land.Both resident and nonresident owners voiced concerns about their children who

resided in urban areas at a distance showed no interest in the forest property. Non-resi-dent owners’ reflections evolved around the issue that it might be difficult to transfertheir property, given that their children did not have the same home feelings for or nos-talgic memories of the place that those who once had resided there had. An intervieweereflected on being a nonresident:

I believe it would have been different if we had been residents there. The children wouldhave had a completely different relationship, I think, to the forest as well, because then youwould have been with them in the forest more … We are not part of the localcommunity, in the relationships there, in the way that those who have been living there, orhave lived closer than us. We are a bit like summer guests. (F/regional centre/north)

Relph’s (1976) conception of “insiders” and “outsiders” was endorsed by some north-ern resident owners, who perceived that the geographical distance between nonresidentowners and their property resulted in “another type” of relationship, for instance:

196 S. BERGST�EN AND E. C. H. KESKITALO

They can never get the same feeling for it … they can long for it, they can enjoy beingthere, but they don’t live in it. It’s a substantial difference to live in it. (M/rural/north)

Some nonresident owners, and residents living in municipality centres confirmed theresident owners’ concerns, one of them noting that the alienation grows with geograph-ical distance because of difficulties to bond emotionally with the property:

Obviously, if you had been living in the place you might emphasise the spiritual part more.Now you try to find a certain line of being rational in your actions, and you may thinkdifferently and maybe use it differently compared to if you live on the property. (M/municipality centre/south)

In contrast, other owners residing at a geographical distance stressed that they didnot focus on the economic income and logging because if they did their sense of placewould be lost. They instead remarked that resident owners, because of their dependenceon the income from the forest, had a more economically rational approach than theythemselves did, who “could afford” to have a “more sentimental” relationship withthe land.

Discussion and Conclusions

By examining how Swedish private forest owners residing at varying geographical dis-tances to their forest property construct their sense of place, this study contributes toan understanding of the increasingly diverse forest owner corps (with growing numbersof nonresident owners) and their relationship to their forestland. In particular, the dif-ferent ways in which owners experience closeness to or distance from their propertiesshow that sense of place is more complex than merely about geographical distance andresidential status.When used as a frame in the qualitative analysis, the concept of sense of place high-

lights the forest owners’ experiences and meanings of their forest properties as subject-ive places that do not only encompass the natural forest environment or the owners’physical bonds to the property. Regardless of geographical distance or residency, thisstudy demonstrates that the properties signify significant personal, social, and historicalconnections and involvements that are embedded in the particular setting of the prop-erty. A sense of place is often generated on the basis that the property and the sur-rounding rural areas is or has been a place of residence, part of a long family history,or it has been inherited (cf. J€orgensen and Stjernstr€om 2008, Markowski-Lindsay et al.2016). Drawing on the sense of place literature, this study does not only demonstrateforest owners’ personal experiences and interpretations (cf. Relph 1976; Tuan 1977)related to their forestland but it also enhances the understanding of their ties to theirproperties as constructed through social interactions, contexts, and processes over time,in accordance with the social constructionist approach (cf. Stokowski 2008). Sense ofplace was gained by the interviewees early in life, being learned between generations,changed or developed through acquiring ownership, with age, over the life course, aswell as being created out of memories. Wider social processes (cf. Massey 1994; Harvey1996) such as rural change, including depopulation and negative economic develop-ment, were also recognized in this study as contributing to alterations in sense of place.This study supports the importance of time in shaping people’s sense of place (e.g.,

SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 197

Tuan 1977; Massey 2005), as well as the recognition that sense of place is formedthrough a combination of various influences. As a result, this study indicates that inde-pendent of being a resident or a nonresident, owners’ feelings for their properties arenot static, but over time they are subject to reconstruction through diverse social experi-ences, circumstances, and contexts.How, then, does geographical distance and residency shape the forest owners’ sense of

place? The results show a mixed picture. For some owners, not residing on the propertyitself, living far away, and spending time away from it resulted in experiencing distant feel-ings or a changed sense of place with respect to the forest property. Also, the differences inthe case study contexts, whereby northern owners resided further away from their proper-ties than the southern owners, contributed to some owners’ experiencing distance to theirforestland. However, as this study illustrates, physical distance or proximity and residencycould not readily or alone explain forest owners’ feelings of distance or closeness (cf.Kaltenborn & Williams 2002). The study suggests that the owners construct their feelingsof closeness or distance to their properties from a variety of sources and that these arechangeable. In particular, we identified the social and ownership contexts, i.e., the socialsettings and interactions, and the circumstances of ownership—in combination and/orover time—as instrumental in both feeling distance and closeness. For many owners, asense of belonging, home, continuity, kinship, custodianship, stability, and well-being wasderived from their social and ownership contexts. Others’ sense of place were, within theirpersonal contexts, characterized by feelings of social alienation, ambivalence, no engage-ment or interest, as well as experiencing ownership of forests as a burden. With this diver-sity in mind of how sense of place, and feelings of distance or closeness, were sociallyconstructed among the forest owners (and with consideration to this limited qualitativeinterview study), we could not observe clear-cut similarities or differences between theresident and nonresident groups or the categories within. Thus, rather than generalizingbecause of geographical distance or residency,3 this study highlights the multiple realitiesof the existing forest owners corps in Sweden.However, while not implying that physical distance or non-residency are unimport-

ant, our results do nonetheless raise a question concerning the requirement for a personto have both geographical proximity and social intimacy (e.g., Tuan 1977) in order tofeel closeness to a place. The findings of the present study complicate the argumentsthat residency and “insideness” are salient for a sense of place and that geographicalmobility is not conducive to having a “feel” for the place (Relph 1976; Tuan 1977).Rather, the results suggest that mobility can bridge spatial distances and that people candevelop close emotional ties with several places (cf. Gustafson 2006) or places that theyhave only visited or lived in on a part-time basis (cf. Kaltenborn & Williams 2002).Feelings of “home” in the place of their property were identified by both resident andnonresident owners, but nonresident owners, in particular, emphasized their emotionalanchoring. These “distant” owners did not regard their own mobile lives as restrictingtheir sense of place; on the contrary, their sense of place was influenced by their mobil-ity, and for this reason, their property could constitute a sense of stability and continu-ity. In fact, some owners residing far away perceived that absence "can make the heartgrow fonder” (cf. Tuan 1977, 50). Consequently, the findings indicate that distant placesoutside the permanent residency for private forest owners can also give a sense of

198 S. BERGST�EN AND E. C. H. KESKITALO

belonging and safety (cf. Manzo 2003). In particular, we found that the physical houseslocated on the property, such as second homes or former residential buildings, provedto be important to nonresident forest owners’ sense of place because they facilitatedtheir visits and therefore supported their social and historical relationships with and atthe property, such as with family, friends, and the local community (cf. Nordlund andWestin 2011). Drawing on research on second homes, second-home owners can havehigher levels of attachment to a place than year-round residents or tourists, as theyoften both have long-term ties and experience significant social relationships there(Stedman 2006). Thus, the concerns to successful generational transfer (cf. Creighton,Blatner, and Carroll 2015) by some owners of both forest ownership and a sense ofplace to new generations residing in urban areas could be discussed in light of the sug-gestion that new generations are likely to form dissimilar relationships than previousgenerations with their properties, for instance—as reported by the interviewees in thisstudy—transforming houses from permanent dwellings into second homes and therebyfacilitating a sense of home (cf. Flemsaeter 2009). In this way, forest owners residing ata distance might not experience a “weaker” (or indeed a “stronger”) relation with theirforest property in comparison to resident owners or perceive themselves as being“outsiders” in the way that some northern resident owners perceived them. Rather, theymay experience another kind of relationship based on a sense of place constructed inand from their specific context as nonresidents, such as being second homeowners andnot dependent on their forestland for their livelihood.In conclusion, this study demonstrates the complexity in assuming an “insider-out-

sider,” dichotomous distinction (cf. Relph 1976) and that geographical distance, or resi-dency, alone can explain variations in sense of place in the context of private forestownership. Viewing sense of place as socially constructed and changeable makes it possibleto understand the diverse ways in which owners are tied to their properties, and how theseties may alter with time, circumstances, and contexts. The study has shown how physicaldistance, non-residency, and mobility may generate not only feelings of distance but howit can also nurture emotional closeness and feelings of belonging among nonresident own-ers. Thus, irrespective of geographical distance or residency, it is important to take intoaccount the fact that forest owners do not simply possess forest environments or financialassets but that they are owners of places instilled with a variety of social and historical con-nections, which significantly shape their relationships to their forestland in various ways.Future research on the relationships between geographical proximity, mobility, and senseof place could delve further into the importance of particular social linkages, connected-ness, and involvement extending beyond property boundaries for forest owners’ sense ofplace (cf. Massey 1994), such as to local rural communities and family ties. Although wecannot assume a linear relationship between sense of place and behavior from the findingsin this study, we nonetheless maintain that this research points to the need for policy-mak-ers and practitioners to design relevant policies and programs concerning private forestowners—for example, related to forest management, public land use planning for natureprotection and recreation, information and extension programs—that sincerely incorpor-ate a deep understanding of the plurality in forest owners, their contexts, and the influen-ces that together construct their sense of place.

SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 199

Notes1. In this article, we use the term “private forest owners,” which is synonymous with the

often-used definition “non-industrial forest owners”; i.e., owners are “non-industrial in theirland ownership goals and behavior because by definition they do not directly ownprocessing facilities and their principal responsibilities are not to stockholders” (Kittredge2005, 673).

2. Sense of place has often been used interchangeably with place attachment, which focuses onthe positive emotional bond people have to a place, whereas sense of place is considered toprovide a more holistic understanding of subjective qualities, including negative or neutralsense of place. Place attachment is used primarily in the academic field of environmentalpsychology and in tourist research, often measuring different components, whereas sense ofplace is more grounded in human geography and more qualitative in character (Williamsand Vaske 2003; Convery, Corsane, and Davis 2014; Beidler and Morrison 2015). In socialscience natural resource research, both concepts have been used.

3. See Sorice, Rajala, and Kreuter (2018) for similar conclusions related to a quantitative studyon absentee landowners in the US.

Acknowledgments

We sincerely thank all forest owners participating in the study. We thank Olof Olsson for pro-ducing Figure 1, which is reproduced with kind permission of the Editor of Land Use Policy.

Funding

This research was conducted within the PLURAL project (Planning for Rural-Urban Dynamics:Living and Acting at Several Places) and funded by the Swedish Research Council Formas underGrant 2011-1702.

References

Baxter, J. 2010. Case studies in qualitative research. In Qualitative research methods in humangeography, ed. I. Hay, 81–97. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Beidler, K. J., and J. M. Morrison. 2015. Sense of place: Inquiry and application. Journal ofUrbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability 9 (3):205–215. doi:10.1080/17549175.2015.1056210

Bradshaw, M., and E. Stratford. 2010. Qualitative research design and rigour. In Qualitativeresearch methods in human geography, ed. I. Hay, 69–80. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research inPsychology 3 (2):77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Castree, N. 2003. Place: Connections and boundaries in an interdependent world. In Key conceptsin geography, eds. S. L Holloway, S. P. Rice, and G. Valentine, 165–185. London: SagePublications.

Convery, I., G. Corsane, and P. Davis. 2014. Introduction: Making sense of place. In Makingsense of place: Multidisciplinary perspectives, eds. I. Convery, G. Corsane, and P. Davis, 1–8.Woodbridge: The Boydell Press.

Creighton, J., K. A. Blatner, and M. S. Carroll. 2015. For the love of the land: Generational landtransfer and the future of family forests in Western Washington state, USA. Small-ScaleForestry 15 (1):1–15. doi:10.1007/s11842-015-9301-2

Cresswell, T. 2004. Place: A short introduction. Malden: Blackwell Publications.Cresswell, T. 2014. Place. In The sage handbook of human geography, eds. R. Lee, N. Castree, R.

Kitchin, V. Lawson, A. Paasi, C. Philo, S. Radcliffe, S. M. Roberts, and C. W. J. Withers, 3–21.Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

200 S. BERGST�EN AND E. C. H. KESKITALO

Derrien, M. M., and P. A. Stokowski. 2014. Sense of place as a learning process: Examples fromthe narratives of Bosnian immigrants in Vermont. Leisure Sciences 36 (2):107–125. doi:10.1080/01490400.2013.862885

Eisenhauer, B. W., R. S. Krannich, and D. J. Blahna. 2000. Attachments to special places on pub-lic lands: An analysis of activities, reason for attachments, and community connections. Society& Natural Resources 13 (5):421–441. doi:10.1080/089419200403848

Farnum, J., T. Hall, and L. E. Kruger. 2005. Sense of place in natural resource recreation and tour-ism: An evaluation and assessment of research findings. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-660. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest ResearchStation.

Fischer, A. P., J. Bliss, F. Ingemarson, G. Lidestav, and L. L€onnstedt. 2010. From the small wood-land problem to ecosocial systems: The evolution of social research on small-scale forestry inSweden and the USA. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 25 (4):390–398. doi:10.1080/02827581.2010.498386

Flemsaeter, F. 2009. Home matters: The role of home in property enactment on Norwegiansmallholdings. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift - Norwegian Journal of Geography 63 (3):204–214.doi:10.1080/00291950903239030

Gustafson, P. 2001. Meanings of place: Everyday experience and theoretical conceptualizations.Journal of Environmental Psychology 21 (1):5–16. doi:10.1006/jevp.2000.0185

Gustafson, P. 2006. Place attachment and mobility. In Multiple dwelling and tourism: Negotiatingplace, home and identity. eds. N. McIntyre, D. Williams, and K. McHugh, 17–31. Wallingford:CAB International.

Gustafson, P. 2009. Mobility and territorial belonging. Environment and Behavior 41 (4):490–508.doi:10.1177/0013916508314478

Harvey, D. 1996. Justice, nature and the geography of difference. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.Haugen, K., S. Karlsson, and K. Westin. 2016. New forest owners: Change and continuity in the

characteristics of Swedish non-industrial private forest owners (NIPF owners) 1990–2010.Small-Scale Forestry 15 (4):533–550. doi:10.1007/s11842-016-9338-x

Hogl, K., M. Pregernig, and G. Weiss. 2005. What is new about new forest owners? A typologyof private forest ownership in Austria. Small–Scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy 4(3):325–342.

Ingemarson, F., A. Lindhagen, and L. Eriksson. 2006. A typology of small-scale private forestowners in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 21 (3):249–259. doi:10.1080/02827580600662256

Jorgensen, B. S., and R. C. Stedman. 2001. A comparative analysis of predictors of sense of placedimensions: Attachment to, dependence on, and identification with lakeshore properties.Journal of Environmental Management 79 (3):316–327. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.08.003

J€orgensen, H., and O. Stjernstr€om. 2008. Emotional links to forest ownership. Restitution of landand use of a productive resource in P~olva County, Estonia. Fennia 186 (2):95–111.

Kaltenborn, B. P., and D. R. Williams. 2002. The meaning of place: Attachments toFemundsmarka National Park, Norway, among tourists and locals. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift– Norwegian Journal of Geography 56 (3):189–98. doi:10.1080/00291950260293011

Kendra, A., and R. B. Hull. 2005. Motivations and behaviors of new forest owners in Virginia.Forest Science 51 (2):142–54.

Keskitalo, E. C. H. 2017. Conclusions: New forest owners under globalised, rural-urban relations.In Globalisation and change in forest ownership and forest use: Natural resource management intransition, ed. E. C. H. Keskitalo, 303–314. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kittredge, D. B. 2005. The cooperation of private forest owners on scales larger than one individ-ual property: International examples and potential application in the United States. ForestPolicy and Economics 7 (4):671–688. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2003.12.004

Kvarda, M. E. 2004. Non-agricultural forest owners’ in Austria – A new type of forest ownership.Forest Policy and Economics 6 (5):459–467. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2004.01.005

Larson, S., D. M. De Freitas, and C. C. Hicks. 2013. Sense of place as a determinant of people’sattitudes towards the environment: Implications for natural resources management and

SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 201

planning in the Great Barrier Reef. Journal of Environmental Management 117: 226–234. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.11.035

Lidestav, G., C. Thellbro, P. Sandstr€om, T. Lind, E. Holm, O. Olsson, K. Westin, H. Karppinen,and A. Ficko. 2017. Interactions between forest owners and their forests. In Globalisation andchange in forest ownership and forest use: Natural resource management in transition, ed.E. C. H. Keskitalo, 97–137. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lin, C.-C., and M. Lockwood. 2014. Assessing sense of place in natural settings: A mixed-methodapproach. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 57 (10):1441–1464. doi:10.1080/09640568.2013.811401

L€ahdesm€aki, M., and A. Matilainen. 2014. Born to be a forest owner? An empirical study of theaspects of psychological ownership in the context of inherited forests in Finland. ScandinavianJournal of Forest Research 29 (2):101–110. doi:10.1080/02827581.2013.869348

Manzo, L. C. 2003. Beyond house and haven: Toward a revisioning of emotional relationshipswith places. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 (1):47–61. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00074-9

Markowski-Lindsay, M., P. Catanzaro, A. Milman, and D. Kittredge. 2016. Understanding familyforest land future ownership and use: Exploring conservation bequest motivations. Small-ScaleForestry 15 (2):241–256. doi:10.1007/s11842-015-9320-z

Massey, D. 1993. Questions of locality. Geography 78 (2):142–149.Massey, D. 1994. Space, place and gender. Cambridge: Polity Press.Massey, D. 2005. For space. London: Sage Publications.Mårald, E., C. Sandstr€om, and A. Nordin. 2017. Forest governance and management across time:

Developing a new forest social contract. London: Routledge.Nordlund, A., and K. Westin. 2011. Forest values and forest management attitudes among private

forest owners in Sweden. Forests 2 (1):30–50. doi:10.3390/f2010030Relph, E. 1976. Place and placelessness. London: Pion Limited.Rickenbach, M., K. Zeuli, and E. Sturgess-Cleek. 2005. Despite failure: The emergence of “new”

forest owners in private forest policy in Wisconsin, USA. Scandinavian Journal of ForestResearch 20 (6):503–513. doi:10.1080/02827580500434806

Ritchie, J., J. Lewis, and G. Elam. 2012. Designing and selecting samples. In Qualitative researchpractice: A guide for social science students and researchers, eds. J. Ritchie, and J. Lewis,77–108. London: Sage Publications.

Soini, K., H. Vaarala, and E. Pouta. 2012. Residents’ sense of place and landscape perceptions atthe rural–urban interface. Landscape and Urban Planning 104 (1):124–134. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.10.002

Sorice, M. G., K. Rajala, and U. P. Kreuter. 2018. Understanding management decisions of absen-tee landowners: More than just presence-absence. Rangeland Ecology & Management 71 (2):159–162. doi:10.1016/j.rama.2017.12.002

Statistics Sweden [SCB] 2018. Kommuner i siffror [Municipalities in numbers]. https://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/sverige-i-siffror/kommuner-i-siffror/#?region1¼2462&region2¼1293 (accessedSeptember 10, 2018).

Stedman, R. C. 2003. Is it really just a social construction? The contribution of the physical envir-onment to sense of place. Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal 16 (8):671–685. doi:10.1080/08941920309189

Stedman, R. C. 2006. Understanding place attachment among second home owners. AmericanBehavioral Scientist 50 (2):187–205. doi:10.1177/0002764206290633

Stokowski, P. A. 2008. Creating social senses of place: New directions for sense of place researchin natural resource management. In Understanding concepts of place in recreation research andmanagement, eds. L. E. Kruger, T. E Hall, and M. C. Stiefel, 31–60. General Technical ReportPNW-GTR-744. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, PacificNorthwest Research Station.

Tuan, Y.-F. 1975. Place: An experiential perspective. Geographical Review 65 (2):151–165. doi:10.2307/213970

202 S. BERGST�EN AND E. C. H. KESKITALO

Tuan, Y.-F. 1977. Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press.

Urquhart, J., and P. Courtney. 2011. Seeing the owner behind the trees: A typology of small-scaleprivate woodland owners in England. Forest Policy and Economics 13 (7):535–544. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2011.05.010

Urquhart, J., P. Courtney, and B. Slee. 2010. Private ownership and public good provision inEnglish woodlands. Small-Scale Forestry 9 (1):1–20. doi:10.1007/s11842-009-9098-y.

Westin, K., L. Eriksson, G. Lidestav, H. Karpinnen, K. Haugen, and A. Ficko. 2017. Individualforest owners in context. In Globalisation and change in forest ownership and forest use:Natural resource management in transition, ed. E. C. H. Keskitalo, 57–96. London: PalgraveMacmillan.

Wiersum, K. F., B. H. M. Elands, and M. A. Hoogstra. 2005. Small-scale forest ownership acrossEurope: Characteristics and future potential. Small-Scale Forest Economics, Management andPolicy 4 (1):1–19.

Williams, D. R. 2002. Post-utilitarian forestry: What’s place got to do with it? In Proceedings ofthe Human Dimensions of Natural Resources in the West Conference, 114–123. Alta, WY,October 18–21.

Williams, D. R., and J. J. Vaske. 2003. The measurement of place attachment: Validity and gener-alizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Science 49 (6):830–840.

Winchester, H. P. M., and M. W. Rofe. 2010. Qualitative research and its place in human geog-raphy. In Qualitative research methods in human geography, ed. I. Hay, 3–25. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 203